The pilot reported that, during takeoff at the airport in Page, Arizona, the Cessna 182 experienced a “loss of lift.”
He rejected the takeoff, and while landing back on the runway, the airplane bounced and veered left. The airplane left the runway and came to rest in a shallow ditch.
The pilot reported that the maximum gross weight of the airplane was 3,100 pounds and that the weight at the time of the accident was 3,055 pounds.
The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing.
The automated weather observation station on the airport reported that, about 17 minutes before the accident, the wind was from 250° at 10 knots, gusting to 19 knots, visibility 10 statute miles, cloud condition clear, temperature 79°F, dew point 3°F, altimeter setting 29.71 inches of mercury. The airplane was departing Runway 15. The estimated density altitude was 6,816′.
Probable cause: The pilot’s failure to maintain directional control during a rejected takeoff in gusting quartering tailwind conditions.
NTSB Identification: GAA18CA246
This April 2018 accident report is provided by the National Transportation Safety Board. Published as an educational tool, it is intended to help pilots learn from the misfortunes of others.
I landed on 33 at Page once when there was a strong gusting crosswind from the west and got my Cheetah down but it wasn’t pretty… thinking about it later I kicked myself for not using the short cross runway 25…. that lesson was imprinted into my brain that day… if there are strong gusting crosswinds, I use any cross runway, no matter it’s length…. groundspeed is very slow when landing at normal IAS into a strong headwind, so rollout is very short. 2200 ft is plenty long for most GA aircraft when there is a strong headwind, so the relative short length should not influence your decision to use it.
What would be your comfort level with a departure on 25 at gross weight, density altitude at 6816′, and those homes 2700′ ahead?
I wouldn’t have high confidence with a 150hp Cheetah at GW, but I wouldn’t think a 182 would have any problem with that, using a little flaps if needed. I would have used 33 with some headwind component or have waited it out for lighter winds with the Cheetah. I seem to remember the runway is sloped downhill some from the 33 end, which would also benefit a 33 departure. Most of the tour planes land and take-off on 33. There were tour planes in the pattern, which is why I followed suite and landed on 33…. next time it will be 25. I now have a RV6A with 180hp, so a 25 departure with strong west wind would be a no brainer choice. Power helps with choices like that and I would think a 182 wouldn’t have a problem clearing houses 2700′ away taking off on 25 with a strong headwind, but I’m no expert on 182’s, having flown one once…. it was like driving a truck. 🙂
How did this idiot know that the weight was 3055 lbs. I guess he carries scales with him!!!!
Like we all do: Take the empty weight of the airplane, add weight of fuel, passengers and cargo?
That term “brained” was an auto correction by iPhone, I had typed in “no brainer” — referring to a pretty easy decision on a 72 degree day with a 182!
There is a runway 25 at Page, shorter, but directly into the wind would seem like a no-brainer.
That’s a good point and I’ve never seen this airport before so did some checking out of curiosity. Runway 25 is very short (2201′) but would have been perfect for the wind. However the distance to clear a 50′ obstacle would have been marginal. The approximate distance from a POH I found online would have been approximately 2250′ including allowance for the density altitude and headwind. The distance to two homes on runway centerline in the adjacent neighborhood would have been just under 2700′. I can see where runway 15 (5950×150) looked fairly safe but runway 33 would have given him a headwind component.
Getting back down to the runway after a crosswind liftoff can be a handful. By then the pilot has probably relaxed pressure on the controls and the airplane has weathervaned. It’s not just controlling the drift back to the ground but also correctly putting back all of the rudder and aileron pressure that was just used for the takeoff.
45lbs under max gross? You burn more fuel than that just on taxi and takeoff. This guy must weight 400lbs plus.
I wanted to say something good about this so I looked up the NTSB report. The file was shown as missing. I did find a published report on the accident. There were no injuries to any of the four occupants, so the good decision made that day was to wear the belts and shoulder harnesses.
Is this the same pilot who dinged the 172 because of “sudden lack of wind”?